"It was the best of times, it was the
worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of
belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had
nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other wayin short, the period was
so far like the present period, that some
of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for
evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." Charles Dickens' famous opening lines from his
book "The Tale of Two Cities."

The
two cities are, of course Paris and London, two of the world's major metropolises
of the time (end of the 18th century), but oh so different from each
other in so many ways. And so we have "The
Mueller Report" on, primarily, the investigation headed by Robert Mueller on:
a) Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and its aftermath, b)
possible Trump Campaign and Presidency cooperation/coordination with it, and c)
attempts by President Trump to obstruct justice in a variety of ways relating
to one or another of the investigations of the Russian interference and related
matters.

Bob Mueller's dream wish to Santa at Christmastime. Maybe. Or maybe he really did want just to be Joe Friday from .Dragnet,. and just .get the facts, Ma'am, just the facts..(Image by wbillard)DetailsDMCA

There is also the "Barr Report," that is the mis-leading 3 ½ page summary
that Mr. Barr offered to the public some days before he released his "censored-for-the-benefit-of-the-President-to-the-extent-he-thought-he-could-pull-it-off"
(otherwise known as the above-mentioned "redacted") version of the Report. (And then there was also the presser-spin that Barr
put on the redacted version before he released it.) Neither the public nor the Congress has, as of
this writing, seen the full Report. If Mr. Barr has his way, neither the public
nor the Congress will ever see the full Report (less any must-be-protected national
security matters). This of course is
because the President has been "fully vindicated" on both the "collusion" and
obstruction of justice matters.

But
wait a minute. If the President has been"
fully vindicated" why wouldn't he and his boy Barr want the full Report released?
And if the President had been "fully
vindicated" why are there two completely different versions of the Report
circulating in the media, creating the above-mentioned "Tale of Two Mueller
Reports?" One version, from such sources
as The Times, the Washington Post, and MSNBC, representing what are
apparently very careful and complete analyses of the available text, shows:

- Advertisement -

a) That there was extensive interference
in the 2016 Presidential Campaign by elements of the Russian government and
minions, on behalf of the Trump campaign, that the Trump campaign knew of them,
but while it took advantage of the interference (meeting
the dictionary definition of "collusion," which is not a crime), it did not
do so in a manner that rose to a matter of conspiracy (which is a crime) that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
in a court of law. That there was
collusion, by definition (as in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd
ed., "a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes")
is shown by the evidence. e.g., see Yourish and Buchanan, below. That there was a provable conspiracy to engage in it was not proven by the Mueller team. That the Report did not, as far as I know,
define either "collusion" or conspiracy to commit it. In my view, this is most unfortunate.

b)
That there were many instances of attempts to obstruct justice by the President
and his men and women is clearly shown by the evidence, e.g., see Schmidt and Savage
below.

And
so, the Report would seem to be pretty clear in what it says, although it is
over 400 pages long and contains many redactions. Nevertheless, as the title of this column
says, in terms of the reporting/-presentation of its findings, it is as if
there were two completely separate, completely contradictory Reports.

The reporting of the bulk of the print and (mainly
cable) TV media on the Report is consistent with what is presented very briefly
above: that the Russians had an extensive and sophisticated campaign of
(mainly) internet interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign; that it was
carried out to harm the campaign of Hillary Clinton and benefit that of Donald
Trump; that the President's men had frequent interactions with various Russians
although such activity did not rise to the level of provable conspiracy; and that
the President attempted to obstruct justice on a number of different occasions. That's one version.

But
then there is an entirely different version of the Report, presented by
Fox"News" and many (but definitely not all) of its reporters and analysts. According to this team, headed, of course, by
Sean Hannity, the Report absolutely clears the Trump team, as the
President himself said on an uncountable number of occasions, of "collusion
with the Russians." It's "all made up." As for obstruction as it appears in the Report,
well, that tends to be downplayed, except that the President himself says that the
Report clears him on that charge (when it clearly doesn't). But then the purveyors of the, shall we say,
different version, go on to deal with a variety of other topics/subjects.

Sean Hannity. So! You thought I would put up a caricature, didn't you? The man does actually smile once in a while. especially when he thins that he has trapped an anti-Trumper (which can be done, by staying in the fact-free FoxZone).(Image by Gage Skidmore)DetailsDMCA

- Advertisement -

One
is the origin of the Mueller probe itself which they claim is entirely illegitimate,
the product of some "Deep State" which was out to "get the President" and
prevent his election (a task with they obviously dealt with total incompetence). That the whole probe began because of the
so-called "Steele Dossier" (it didn't), which was funded from its beginning by
the Clinton Campaign (it wasn't; Steele's work was funded in the first instance
by an anti-Trump Republican group, and even when the Clinton campaign took it
over they used little of it because they were concerned a) with its veracity
and b) its salaciousness in one instance.
(Some time ago I published a report on an extensive analysis of Christopher
Steele and his dossier by Jane
Mayer of The New Yorker. She came to
the conclusion that for the most part it is accurate.) The second version of the Report talks about
one Carter Page a lot and how he was unfairly treated by the FBI and
Mueller. (See my column on that worthy
at: click here)

The second version also, in relation especially to Page, delves
into FISA warrants and how they were issued illegally and unjustly and were
major sources of the "spying." It is not
only the likes of Hannity and the President but also A.G. Barr who assert that this occurred at the beginning of the counter-intelligence investigation that the
FBI had started based on information that had been coming in from foreign intelligence
agencies.

It happened that the FBI
started it up in the summer of 2016 based not on anything to do with Page (or
the Steele Dossier as it happened) but rather with George Papadopoulos and
other sources. And so on and so
forth. That will not prevent Presidential-puppy
Bill Barr from starting an investigation of how what became the Mueller probe
got started, in parallel to one on that subject that the Dept. Of Justice Inspector General is already
carrying out.

But the point here is that if one listens to the Second Version of
the Report virtually nothing that is really in it is covered. What is, in this version, the case being made
that it is, as the President has been saying almost from the beginning of the process,
it is a "hoax," a "witch-hunt," a "plot by the Deep State" (this one is especially
pushed by left-wingers who are bashing it too). The purpose, they postulate, is to delegitimize Trump, based on fiction,
and lead the nation into nuclear war with Russia. (In this they ignore Trump's own initiatives
in further building up the Military-Industrial complex and the U.S. nuclear
weapons capability, as well as the possible militarization of U.S. space activities,
and etc. But that is another matter.)

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at StonyBrookMedicine (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 35 books. In addition to his position on OpEdNews as a "Trusted Author," he is a Senior Editor, (more...)

One interpretation of the "Tale of Two Mueller Reports" is that the Kremlin efforts to maximally polarize the body politic in the US was a smashing success.

Submitted on Thursday, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:05:14 PM

(0+)

Want to post your own comment on this Article?

Congress Switchboard:
202-224-3121

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

"There's no dispute that we now live in a hyper-connected, globalized world--but plenty of argument over the type of globalization that's best for our collective future. In this timely work, Rob Kall makes a persuasive case for 'trickle-up' globalization from below and that the truest, best, and most long-lasting fundamental change always comes from the bottom up. Read this bookthen act on it!"

Rory O'Connor, award-winning filmmaker and author of Friends, Followers, and the Future: How Social Media are Changing Politics, Threatening Big Brands, and Killing Traditional Media